Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2021-01214908, Date: 2022-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Defendants’ (Tai Han Quach and Kristina Mai Quach) unopposed Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaints (Motion), filed on 3-30-22 under ROA No. 71, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Code of Civil Procedure section 428.10, states, “A party against whom a cause of action has been asserted in a complaint or cross-complaint may file a cross-complaint setting forth either or both of the following: [¶] (a) Any cause of action he has against any of the parties who filed the complaint or cross-complaint against him. Nothing in this subdivision authorizes the filing of a cross-complaint against the plaintiff in an action commenced under Title 7 (commencing with Section 1230.010) of Part 3. [¶] (b) Any cause of action he has against a person alleged to be liable thereon, whether or not such person is already a party to the action, if the cause of action asserted in his cross-complaint (1) arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause brought against him or (2) asserts a claim, right, or interest in the property or controversy which is the subject of the cause brought against him.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50 states, “(a) A party shall file a cross-complaint against any of the parties who filed the complaint or cross-complaint against him or her before or at the same time as the answer to the complaint or cross-complaint. [¶] Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for trial. [¶] (c) A party shall obtain leave of court to file any cross-complaint except one filed within the time specified in subdivision (a) or (b). Leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.”

The declaration states, “. . . both Defendant Kristina Quach and Defendant Tah Han Quach’s . . . cross-complaints were rejected by the court sine they needed to seek leave to file.” (Bridewell Decl.)  The court’s file reflects that Defendant—Kristina Mai Quach’s Cross-Complaint was filed on 1-14-22 under ROA No. 30.  On 3-4-22 under ROA No. 52, Defendant—Ondina Cordova filed an answer to Defendant—Kristina Mai Quach’s Cross-Complaint.  Therefore, the court DENIES the Motion as brought by Defendant—Kristina Mai Quach as MOOT.

As to Defendant—Tai Han Quach, the court clerk incorrectly rejected Defendant—Tai Han Quach’s attempt to file a Cross-Complaint as requiring leave from the court. (See, Notice of Rejection of Electronic Filing filed on 3-22-22 under ROA No. 68.)  Since the court did not set a trial date until 5-3-22, Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50 did not require Defendant—Tai Han Quach did not need to obtain leave from the court to file a Cross-Complaint.  Therefore, the court GRANTS the Motion as to Defendant—Tai Han Quach.  The court ORDERS Defendant—Tai Han Quach to electronically file and serve the Cross-Complaint (Bridewell Decl., ¶ 10 and Exhibit A) no later than 8-23-22.

Finally, the court notes that Defendant—Ondina Cordova filed an answer to the joint First Amended Cross-Complaint filed on 3-18-22 under ROA No. 67.  Since there is no First Amended Cross-Complaint, the court STRIKES Defendant—Ondina Cordova’s answer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint filed on 3-18-22 under ROA No. 67.

Defendants are to give notice.